Wash. Times fails to disclose op-ed author's ties to defense industry
SUMMARY: The Washington Times published an op-ed by John R. Guardiano criticizing Robert Gates' decision to cancel the Future Combat Systems' vehicle program but did not disclose Guardiano's ties to a contractor for the FCS vehicle program.
On May 22, The Washington Times published an op-ed by John R. Guardiano criticizing Defense Secretary Robert Gates' decision to cancel the Future Combat Systems' (FCS) vehicle program but did not disclose Guardiano's ties to Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), a contractor for the FCS vehicle program. Rather, the Times identified Guardiano only as "a writer in Arlington."
An October 2005 Boeing press release listed Guardiano as an FCS communications contact for SAIC and referred to SAIC as "the Lead Systems Integrator team for the U.S. Army's FCS program." Moreover, a December 15, 2005, Military.com article about FCS contractors' advocacy and public relations efforts referred to Guardiano as "an FCS program spokesman for Science Applications International Corp., the co-lead systems integrator for FCS."
In the Washington Times op-ed, Guardiano criticized Gates for not heeding the advice of "farsighted military leaders" and praised the FCS program for "mak[ing] much greater use of modern-day information technologies -- intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) assets, and an advanced electronic network -- to identify enemy combatants and explosive devices before they can threaten U.S. forces." In an April 6 press conference on the proposed 2009 defense budget, Gates recommended that "we cancel the vehicle component of the current FCS program" because FCS vehicles "do not adequately reflect the lessons of counterinsurgency and close quarters combat in Iraq and Afghanistan" and because of "its very unattractive fee structure that gives the government little leverage to promote cost efficiency."
Guardiano also authored a March 30 Washington Examiner op-ed criticizing Gates' budget proposals in which he was identified, in part, as an employee of "a defense contractor." In an April 3 article, Washington Independent reporter Spencer Ackerman noted that the Examiner "didn't see fit to name the contractor" and asserted that "defense contractors and their Capitol Hill allies are alarmed at how Gates has shut them out of the the (sic) decision-making process about the Pentagon budget as he has publicly warned, in vague terms, about making 'hard choices' that will place defense systems and weapons programs beloved by the armed services and their contractors on the chopping block."
As Media Matters for America documented, a May 11 Washington Times article quoted Fox News military analyst and retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney criticizing the Obama administration's decision to procure only four more F-22 fighters without disclosing that McInerney has reportedly served as a consultant for a major subcontractor on the F-22.
From Guardiano's May 22 Washington Times op-ed:
Is Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates forcing the military to build the modern-day equivalent of the Maginot Line when farsighted military leaders recommend instead more mobile and dynamic defense systems? This, unfortunately, seems to be the case now that Mr. Gates has canceled development of Future Combat Systems (FCS) vehicles.
[...]
Moreover, MRAP is a purely armored solution to threats that cannot be defeated by armor alone. That's why the FCS vehicles include an "active protection system" that destroys RPGs and other projectiles before they can hit our vehicles.
FCS also makes much greater use of modern-day information technologies -- intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) assets, and an advanced electronic network -- to identify enemy combatants and explosive devices before they can threaten U.S. forces.
[...]
Why should Mr. Gates, who is not a military professional, substitute his judgment for the judgment of battle-tested Army and Marine Corps leaders?
Of course, as defense secretary, Mr. Gates has the legal authority to overrule the military. But is doing so wise in this instance? Does it make sense for Mr. Gates to overrule the military's ground-combat leaders on a matter fundamental to how we should fight and win land wars in the 21st century?
I also served as a Marine in Iraq, and guess what? The Washington Times didn't mention that! Nor did they mention that, more than a decade ago, I graduated Phi Beta Kappa from college! And shoot, wouldn't you know it? The Times failed to disclose that I broke up with my girlfriend two weeks ago, and that my favorite food is pizza. How dare they! :)
My work stands on its merits. Media Matters would do well to address the sum and substance of what I write instead of worrying about my professional affiliations past and present. But when you can’t attack the argument, I guess you try to discredit the messenger. Shameful.
John Guardiano
And Gates may be canceling the FCS because he may want to focus less on ground operations.
I've broken up with a few girlfriends in my time and I know how rough it is.
Seriously, this is a time for healing.
Well, goody for your work, but if you seek to influence public opinion, or even public policy, the fact that you worked for a company that would benefit from the shift in public opinion you desire is relevant and should be disclosed. But you don't have to defend that decision on the part of the Times, right? Unless you asked them not to mention you had worked for SAIC, I don't see what you're getting all exercised about.
Anyway, maybe you're new to MMFA, but if they don't take issue with the "sum and substance" of your op-ed, that means you probably have your facts straight, so, congratulations!
You have great sense of humor. A time for healing, indeed! Touche! :)
John Guardiano
You are confusing two issues. The type of combat vehicles that the Army and Marine Corps are developing is one issue. That’s the issue that I analyze in my op-ed. A second issue involves the contracting mechanism that the services use to develop those vehicles. That issue certainly concerns SAIC and Boeing, which are the Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) for the Future Combat Systems program. However, that is not an issue that I discuss in this op-ed!
But even if I did discuss that issue, my PAST affiliation with SAIC is irrelevant. People can and should assess my argument based on its merits. They should not try to dismiss the argument – as Media Matters implicitly does – because I happen to have once worked for SAIC. That’s the lazy way out, a way to avoid substantive thought and analysis.
Based on your logic, Jewish writers who defend the state of Israel should be explicitly identified as Jews; and Catholic writers who defend the sanctity of unborn life should be explicitly identified as Catholic. After all, we know what “their kind” thinks, and readers have a right to know of their religious affiliation! Such scarlet lettering is antithetical to the First Amendment and a disservice to free and open debate.
Published work and arguments should be assessed on their intrinsic merits, period.
John Guardiano
Ignoring our questions to offer strawman arguments back to us. We have some regulars who engage in that type of argument. They take alot of abuse.
By your logic an op-ed supporting a rejected military system by someone who made an income on that system is the same as, a jewish person supporting the State of Israel in an op-ed, or a catholic writer promoting catholic othodoxy, likewise. There maybe a comon religious thread going here, but thats not a call I want to make.
I could wax sracastic for a while, but your invoking scarlet letters and the 1st amendment rights. Past experience in this forum indicates your either about to have your head explode or threaten to sue.
The expectation of disclosure is not antithetical to the First Amendment, nor is highlighting a media source for a failure to provide it.
Both you and the WaTimes are within your First Amendment rights by failing to provide disclosure. MMFA is within its First Amendment rights to highlight the lack of disclosure.
As far as free and open debate, MMFA appears to be accommodating you quite well by allowing you to post all the comments you want on the same page as the item.